Office of School Improvement Differentiated Webinar Series Remediation That Makes A Difference April 24, 2012 Dr. Dorothea Shannon, Thomasyne Beverly, Dr. Greg Wheeler 1

The ultimate goal in school improvement is for the people attached to the school to drive its continuous improvement for the sake of their own children and students. Dr. Sam Redding 2

Today’s Agenda 1.Welcome (2 minutes) 2.Team reports – Providing meaningful, descriptive feedback (10 minutes) 3.Research regarding the featured topic (Corrective instruction v. re-teaching – 20 minutes) 4.Activity/Discussion for participants related to the featured topic (Successful Intervention Programs – 20 minutes) 5.Reflections/Assignment for the subsequent webinar (8 minutes) 3

Purpose Participants will be able to differentiate between re- teaching and corrective instruction Participants will be able to identify the four essential components of effective intervention programs 4

Team Reporting (10 minutes)  Take a moment to reflect on the Formative Assessment PD you have completed to date; which modules have you spent the most time on, where have you had the greatest success and what lead to that success? 5

Remediation Program Based on Identified Criteria  Programs occurred before school, after school, and/or during the school day.  Remediation software was used in many schools.  Intervention was provided in addition to regular classroom instruction.  Data was used to identify students for remediation – it was not left up to individual teachers.  In all cases, students who failed one or more SOL tests the previous year were placed in remediation programs early in the year.  If students did not meet established criteria for benchmark assessments, they were assigned to an intervention program. © 2011 Virginia Foundation for Educational Leadership 6

 “Assessment must be followed by high- quality, corrective instruction designed to remedy whatever learning errors the assessment identified” (Gusky, 1997).  “Teachers must follow their assessments with instructional alternatives that present those concepts in new ways and engage students in different and more appropriate learning experiences” (Gusky, 2003,p.8). 7 What the research says about corrective instruction

Three methods of instruction that incorporate corrective instruction 1. Direct teaching or explicit teaching (Brophy, 1999; Walberg, 2001) – structured presentations emphasizing systematic sequencing of lessons.  Review  Presentation of new content and skills in small steps  Guided student practice  Presented using different strategies 8

Three methods of instruction that incorporate corrective instruction 2. Mastery learning (Walberg, 2006) which includes  Cues – shows students what is to be learned and explains how to learn it  Engagement – is the extent to which learners are actively and persistently participate until appropriate responses are firmly entrenched in their repertories  Corrective feedback – remedies errors in oral or written responses  Reinforcement – is illustrated in the efforts elicited by athletics, games and other cooperative or competitive activities. Give immediate and direct reinforcement  Independent practice - in seatwork and homework with more than 90% success rate  Weekly and monthly reviews of content 9

Three methods of instruction that incorporate corrective instruction 3. Reciprocal teaching (Walberg, 2006)  Learning to learn  Students become teachers  Self-teaching and self-monitoring  “To learn something well, teach it” 10

Essential Components of Intervention Programs Essential Components of Intervention Programs Corrective Instruction Program Evaluation Collaboration Formative Assessment 11

 Designed to inform  Identify students’ individual learning difficulties  Pinpoint the skills and concepts that have been learned well  Must be part of an ongoing effort to help students learn Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J.T., & Madaus, G.F.; (1971) Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning 12 Component #1 Formative Assessment

 “Assessment must be followed by high-quality, corrective instruction designed to remedy whatever learning errors the assessment identified” (Gusky, 1997).  “Teachers must follow their assessments with instructional alternatives that present those concepts in new ways and engage students in different and more appropriate learning experiences” (Gusky, 2003,p.8). 13 Component #2: Corrective Instruction

Is corrective instruction the same as re- teaching??? NO! 14 Corrective Instruction

Corrective Instruction vs. Re-Teaching Corrective Instruction  Present the information using different instructional strategies than were presented during the initial instruction  Emphasizes meta- cognition  Involves “coaching” behaviors Re-Teaching  Presents the information using the same instructional strategies implemented during the initial instructional  Review the worksheet, quiz, or test  Assigns additional written work for the student to complete 15

Tale of Two Teachers Meet Jane Doe who teaches third grade. She tested her students following an instructional unit about fractions. 8 of her students performed poorly on the test. On the next day, she reviewed the test items and solutions with them. The 8 students were re-tested; however, they performed poorly again. Meet John Einstein who also teaches third grade. He tested his students following an instructional unit on fractions. 8 of his students performed poorly on the test. He conducted an item analysis and used the results to plan lessons for the eight students by dividing them into two groups. On the next day, he taught a lesson to two small groups of students using colored teddy bear counters instead of fraction models. What do you think happened when he re-tested his eight students? 16

1.Review multiple sources of assessment data for the student. 2.Develop goals for performance with the student’s input, if possible. 3.Identify the mode of presentation and level of engagement for corrective instruction. 4.Develop a timeline for implementation. 17 Component #3: Collaboration Between Teacher and Intervention Provider

Questions to consider when determining the effectiveness of intervention programs: 1.How did the student respond to the corrective instruction (mode of presentation and level of engagement)? 2.What tools were used to measure mastery of the featured skill(s)? 3.Did the student achieve his/her performance goals? How do you know? 18 Component #4: Program Evaluation

1.How does your Leadership Team monitor the progress of students who receive intervention via one of the above methods? 2.What are the follow-up procedures for students who have received intervention, but continue to perform below grade level? 19 Discussion

"To say that you have taught when students haven't learned is to say you have sold when no one has bought. But how can you know that students have learned without spending hours correcting tests and papers?... check students understanding while you are teaching (not at 10 o'clock at night when you're correcting papers) so you don't move on with unlearned material that can accumulate like a snowball and eventually engulf the student in confusion and despair." Madeline Hunter 20

What was one idea I learned during today’s webinar that I plan to share with teachers at my school? 21

Team Assignments for Webinar Session 8  Be prepared to further discuss how your teachers are providing corrective instruction v. re-teaching  Be prepared to continue the conversation regarding the evaluation of intervention programs  Continue working through the Editure formative assessment modules and continue using the instructional conversations. 22

Questions 23